Personal Property Rights
|
|
- Andrew Curtis
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 St. John's Law Review Volume 46 Issue 3 Volume 46, March 1972, Number 3 Article 23 December 2012 Personal Property Rights St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: Recommended Citation St. John's Law Review (2012) "Personal Property Rights," St. John's Law Review: Vol. 46: Iss. 3, Article 23. Available at: This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized administrator of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact cerjanm@stjohns.edu.
2 1972] SECOND CIRCUIT NOTE on this subject upholds jurisdiction. 22 s And the result of interpreting the statute in this manner is manifestly desirable. 123 PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Three recent Second Circuit cases have illuminated the shadowy contours of federal jurisdiction under Title 28, section 1343(3) of the United States Code which states: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.1 24 All three cases have relied on Justice Stone's formulation that the Civil Rights' statutes confer jurisdiction only when "the right or immunity is one of personal liberty, not dependent for its existence upon the infringement of property rights."' 25 All three cases concern rights secured by the Constitution and not rights secured by federal laws. This dis- This objective was approved in Rosado v. Wyman, 897 U.S. 397 (1970): We are not willing to defeat the common sense policy of pendent jurisdictionthe conservation of judicial energy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation-by a conceptual approach that would require jurisdiction over the primary claim at all stages as a prerequisite to the resolution of the pendent claim. 397 U.S. at U.S.C. 1388(b) (1964) states: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a substantial and related claim under the copyright, patent or trademark laws. Except for section 1338(b) pendent jurisdiction has been a judicial doctrine. The American Law Institute included statutory treatment of pendent jurisdiction in its suggested revision of title 28. AU, STUDY OF THE DIVISION OF JURISDIcTrON BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL CouRTs 1313(a) (Tent. Draft No. 5, May 2, 1967): ahe court shall have jurisdiction to determine all claims arising under State law that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transacactions or occurrences as the federal claim, defense, or counterclaim, if such a determination is necessarily in order to give effective relief on the federal claim or counterclaim or if a substantial question of fact is common to the claims arising under State law and to the federal claim, defense, or counterclaim. 123 With the state courts complaining about their small budgets and large case loads, it would not be unreasonable for the federal courts to assume their obligation to absorb their share of the cases. Moreover, the objective of a "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action" will be better served if an entire dispute can be resolved by one court U.S.C. 1343(3) (1970). This section has no jurisdictional amount requirement, unlike the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C (1970), which requires that the amount in controversy exceed the sum or value of $10, Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 531 (1939) (Stone, J., concurring). Justice Stone's formulation is criticized in Note, The Proper Scope of the Civil Rights Act, 66 HAv. L. REv. 1285, (1953).
3 ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 46:499 tinction is relevant since it avoids the problem of the disparity in language between section 1343(3) which confers judisdiction and section 1983 which creates a federal cause of action. 126 The latter grants a cause of action for "deprivation of rights secured by federal laws"' 12 7 while the former limits jurisdiction to "rights secured by any act of Congress providing for equal rights.' 2 8 The first case, Johnson v. Harder, 129 concerned a mother who claimed that a reduction in her welfare benefits was a denial of due process and the equal protection of the laws. Here the court faced the problem of applying Justice Stone's formulation to a concrete fact situation. While welfare payments are money benefits and, as such, comprise only a property right, their denial deprives an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live. 30 Aware of this dual nature of welfare payments, the court held: Since welfare cases by their very nature involve people at a bare subsistence level, disputes over the correct amounts payable are treated not merely as involving property rights, but some sort of right to exist in society, a personal right under the Stone formula. 131 In Johnson, the court distinguished its earlier ruling in Mc Call v. Shapiro1 3 2 which had denied federal jurisdiction. In that case, the appellant raised a due process claim as to the termination of her Aid For Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits at the district court level. On appeal, she relied solely on the statutory claim that the state regulations conflicted with federal provisions. 33 Subsequently, in Johnson, similar U.S.C (1970). In cases involving constitutional claims the disparity in language is not a factor. See Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F.2d 560, 565 n.8 (2d Cir. 1969). Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co., 176 US. 68 (1900), held that the predecessors of both section 1343(3) and section 1983 applied only to "civil rights." Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, is the common source of both sections. But see Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 170 (1961), where Justice Douglas stated that the "... history of the section of the Civil Rights Act presently invoked [42 U.S.C. section 1983] does not permit such a narrow interpretation." Cf. Note, Limiting The Section 1983 Action in the Wake of Monroe v. Pape, 82 HAv. L. Rav. 1486, 1487 (1967). For an analysis of the legislative history of sections 1343(3) and 1983 see Herzer, Federal Jurisdiction over Statutorily-Based Welfare Claims, 6 Hanv. Civ. RiGHTs-Civ. LIB. L. REv. 1, 4-8 (1970) U.S.C (1970) U.S.C. 1343(3) (1970) (emphasis added) F.2d 7 (2d Cir. 1971). 130 Language used in several welfare cases indicates the importance attached to these benefits by the Supreme Court. Public assistance "involves the most basic economic needs of impoverished human beings." Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485 (1970). A state's action "may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live" or render his situation "immediately desperate." Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264 (1970) F.2d at F,2d 246 (2d Cir. 1969). 133 It appears that the Second Circuit will deny jurisdiction to a welfare claimant
4 1972] SECOND CIRCUIT NOTE constitutional claims were preserved and fully raised on appeal. The court altered its earlier position by stating that if "a colorable constitutional claim has been raised, jurisdiction will properly lie." 34 The most consistent application of the property -personal rights distinction has been in cases involving taxation where the courts have been uniform in dismissing these actions for lack of section 1348 jurisdiction."" 5 In Eisen v. Eastman 3 a landlord brought an action challenging a reduction in the maximum rents chargeable under a city rent control law. The court of appeals held that since the complaint alleged who bases his action solely on a conflict between a state regulation and the Social Security Act: "To assume jurisdiction here (of statutory welfare claims) would be to accept a federal court review power over almost every ruling of the [state] Commissioner in the day to day operation of state welfare laws, regardless of the amount involved." Mc Call v. Shapiro, 416 F.2d 246, 250 (1969). But see Note, Section 1983: A Civil Remedy for the Protection of Federal Rights, 39 N.Y.U.L. REv. 839 (1964) which argues that the legislative purpose of sections 1983 and 1343(3) was to alter the balance of power between federal and state authorities so that federal courts could more effectively protect federal rights. There are strong policy considerations which support federal jurisdiction over non-constitutional welfare claims. Both federal and state administrative forums are inadequate to decide claims based upon a conflict between state and federal provisions. On the federal level, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) has been reticent to apply its own sanction - a complete termination of funds to those states whose welfare programs operate contrary to federal law. Furthermore, there is no formal means, no procedure for the filing of complaints or appeals, by which a dissatisfied individual can bring his claim before the federal agency. Although state fair hearing procedures exist on the state level, they do not generate a binding body of law delineating the permissible scope of administrative discretion. In any event, there are inherent advantages in providing a federal forum to review questions based primarily on conformity to federal law. See Herzer, Federal Jurisdiction over Statutorily-Based Welfare Claims, 6 HARv. Crv. Rlixnrs-Cv. Ian. L. REv. 1, 9-I1 (1970); Note, Federal Judicial Review Of State Welfare Practices, COLUM. L. Ray. 84, (1967) F.2d at 12. (A colorable constitutional claim together with a statutory claim will provide a basis for federal jurisdiction and may enable the court to decide the case on the statutory claim. The doctrine of pendent jurisdiction permits such a result.) In Rosado v. Wyman, 414 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1969), appellees made two principal claims: one based on a violation of the Social Security Act, the other based on a violation of the equal protection clause in that the state statute provided for lower payments to residents of Nassau County than to residents of Queens County. A majority of the court ruled that federal jurisdiction did not exist but Judge Feinberg, in his dissenting opinion, would have upheld the court's jurisdiction on the theory of pendent jurisdiction, even though the constitutional claim had become moot. The Supreme Court reversed the majority decision of the Second Circuit and stated: "For essentially those reasons stated in the Opinion of the District Court and Judge Feinberg's dissent, we think the District Court correctly exercised its discretion by proceeding to the merits." Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 401 (1970). In this welfare case, Judge Feinberg said that pendent jurisdiction was justified by "the saving of judicial time once the case had gone as far as it had, by concern for fairness to the litigants, and by -the appropriateness of having a federal court decide the issue whether congressional conditions to receipt of federal funds are met." 414 F.2d at 185. See generally United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); Hum v. Oursler, 289 US. 238 (1933). 135 See, e.g., Hornbeak v. Hamm, 283 F. Supp. 549 (M.D. Ala. 1968), aff'd per curiam, 393 U.S. 9 (1968); Alterman Transportation Lines v. Public Service Commission, 259 F. Supp. 486 (M.D. Tenn. 1966), aff'd per curiam, 386 US. 262 (1967) F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 841 (1970).
5 ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 46:499 only the-loss of money, jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act was not established. While the decision in Eisen is clear-cut, its dicta that cases involving discharges from public employment "can be viewed about equally well as complaining of a deprivation of the personal liberty to pursue a calling of one's choice or of the profits or emoluments deriving therefrom, 1 37 may have the effect of opening the floodgates to new litigation seeking federal jurisdiction. However, in two recent cases, Tichon v. Harder 1 38 and Canty v. Board of Education, 130 the Second Circuit has stuck its finger in the dike. In both cases, probationary employees were discharged for unsatisfactory work from positions of public employment. In both cases, petitioners relied on general notions of procedural due process under the fourteenth amendment rather than alleging specific violations of rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Constitution. In both cases, federal jurisdiction was denied. In the Tichon case, the court handed down a seemingly ironclad rule: When the underlying interest allegedly injured by the [employment] discharge is one unprotected by any of the first eight amendments, exclusive of protection of property, it is difficult to characterize the claim as one involving "a right of personal liberty" because it becomes more apparent that the only interest at stake is a claimed right to a particular job, an interest easily measured in monetary terms and uneasily equated with "personal liberty."' 40 The court distinguished this case from the situation existing in Johnson by saying that, "Unlike welfare recipients, who exist at a bare subsistence level, it cannot be said that an employee's rights to the profits from his job entail "some sort of right to exist in society.' ' 41 The court retreats somewhat from this strong position when it subsequently states that: "[Iln the absense of a clear, immediate and substantial impact on the employee's reputation which effectively destroys his ability to engage in his occupation, it cannot be said that a right of personal liberty is involved." F.2d at F.2d 1396 (2d Cir. 1971) F.2d 428 (2d Cir. 1971) F.2d at See, e.g., Slochower v. Bd. of Education, 350 U.S. 551 (1956) (exercise of fifth amendment privilege against self incrimination); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952) (first amendment interest). 135 F.2d 1031 (5th Cir. 1970); Birnbaum v. Trussell, 371 F.2d 672 -(2d Cir. 1966) F.2d at Id. at 1402.
6 1972] SECOND CIRCUIT NOTE The Tichon and Canty cases suggest that, as a general rule, a discharge from employment case will not be given federal jurisdiction under section 1343(3).143 There are two possible exceptions to this rule: (1) an employee who has become established in an occupation or profession and has created a reservoir of standing and reputation for skill, honesty and trust, and (2) an employee who is dismissed for racial bias or discrimination, a charge which "permanently brands the person accused as one who is unable to put public and professional duty above personal bias." 144 There are two potential obstacles to adjudication of constitutional claims in the federal courts even if jurisdiction would otherwise exist under section 1343(3). Under the judicially developed doctrine of abstention, a federal court could refrain from exercising its jurisdiction in order to allow the state courts to resolve issues of state law which might render a determination of the constitutional issues unnecessary. 145 However, it seems unlikely that this doctrine would apply to welfare cases since the meaning of a welfare regulation is usually clear on its face and its applicability to a given plaintiff is not likely to be uncertain. Furthermore, a federal decision would not disrupt a regulatory scheme in which the state has a substantial interest because the questions presented are generally federal (relating to social security regulations) and state statutory regulations are adoptions of the federal program. Most importantly, a welfare claimant suffers immediate and irreparable harm when his benefits are cut off. Under such circumstances, an untimely delay is uncalled for. 146 A second obstacle to federal jurisdiction is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 147 This doctrine would attach to both employment and welfare cases. This doctrine exists whenever a state 143 Cf. Gold v. Lomenzo, 425 F.2d 959 (2d Cir. 1970) (A real estate broker had his license revoked for charging excessive fees). The general rule established in the Tichon and Canty cases is in accord with the dissenting opinion in Gold. 144 Birnbaum v. Trussell, 371 F.2d 672, 679 (2d Cir. 1966). 145The abstention doctrine has been held appropriate even when the federal suit is brought under section 1343 to challenge a deprivation of civil rights. Harrison v. N.A.A.C.P., 360 US. 167 (1959). In a dissenting opinion, Justice Douglas argued that a suit brought under the Civil Rights Act is never a proper vehicle for the abstention doctrine. See also, Wechsler, Federal Jurisdiction And the Revision of the Judicial Code, 13 LAW & CoNTEmp. PROB. 216, 230 (1948). 140 See generally, Note, Federal Judicial Review of State Welfare Practices, 67 COLUM. L. REv. 84, (1967). 147 See McNeese v. Bd. of Education, 373 U.S. 668 (1963). It has been argued that McNeese abolished the requirement of exhaustion of adequate state administrative remedies in all cases brought under Section Note, Exhaustion of State Remedies Under the Civil Rights Act, 68 COLUM. L. REv. 1201, 1203 n.15 (1968). But see Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F.2d 560, 569 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 841 (1970).
7 520 ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW has provided for a speedy appeal to a higher administrative officer. Exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required when the remedy is inadequate or either certainly or probably futile A case is currently before the Supreme Court to determine whether the exhaustion of state administrative remedies is a prerequisite to a high school teacher's filing of a Civil Rights suit challenging his dismissal for refusing to shave his beard. Ball v. Kerrville School Dist. Bd. of Trustees, petition for cert. filed, 40 U.S.L.W (U.S. May 24, 1971) (No ).
Federal Jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act - The Case against the Personal-Property Rights Distinction
Volume 17 Issue 2 Article 4 1971 Federal Jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act - The Case against the Personal-Property Rights Distinction Frank L. Tamulonis Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr
More informationDePaul Law Review. Allen J. Riedinger. Volume 29 Issue 3 Spring Article 8
DePaul Law Review Volume 29 Issue 3 Spring 1980 Article 8 Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1343 Does Not Include Statutorily Based Claims of Welfare Rights Deprivation - Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization
More informationChapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies.
Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies. Administrative agencies are governmental bodies other than the courts or the legislatures
More informationMunicipal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. 1983: Bennett v. City of Slidell
Louisiana Law Review Volume 45 Number 5 May 1985 Municipal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. 1983: Bennett v. City of Slidell Jane Geralyn Politz Repository Citation Jane Geralyn Politz, Municipal Liability Under
More informationCivil Rights Actions by State Prisoners (Rodriguez v. McGinnis)
St. John's Law Review Volume 47, December 1972, Number 2 Article 8 Civil Rights Actions by State Prisoners (Rodriguez v. McGinnis) St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview
More informationThe John Marshall Law Review
Volume 22 Issue 2 Article 7 Winter 1988 Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill: The United States Supreme Court Upholds the Authority of Federal Courts to Remand Properly Removed Pendent Jurisdiction Claims,
More informationPublic Employee's Right to a Pre-Termination Hearing Under the Due Process Clause
Indiana Law Journal Volume 48 Issue 1 Article 7 Fall 1972 Public Employee's Right to a Pre-Termination Hearing Under the Due Process Clause Rodger C. Field Indiana University School of Law Follow this
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 03-2040 MAINE STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO; BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs, Appellants,
More informationConstitutional Law - Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Disbarment Proceedings
Louisiana Law Review Volume 27 Number 4 June 1967 Constitutional Law - Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Disbarment Proceedings Thomas R. Blum Repository Citation Thomas R. Blum, Constitutional
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 15-2496 TAMARA SIMIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.
Case: 16-15117 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-15117 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-02350-AKK DEANDRE
More informationRECENT CASES. (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7661a 7661f). 1 See Eric Biber, Two Sides of the Same Coin: Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Action
982 RECENT CASES FEDERAL STATUTES CLEAN AIR ACT D.C. CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT EPA CANNOT PREVENT STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES FROM SUPPLEMENTING INADEQUATE EMISSIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF
More informationLabor--Norris-LaGuardia Act--Federal Jurisdiction--Application of the Act (New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., Inc., 58 S. Ct.
St. John's Law Review Volume 13 Issue 1 Volume 13, November 1938, Number 1 Article 21 May 2014 Labor--Norris-LaGuardia Act--Federal Jurisdiction--Application of the Act (New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary
More informationResidence Waiting Period Denies Equal Protection
Tulsa Law Review Volume 6 Issue 3 Article 7 1970 Residence Waiting Period Denies Equal Protection Tommy L. Holland Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of
More informationConstitutional Law - Procedural Due Process - The Rights of a Non-Tenured Teacher upon Non- Renewal of His Contract at a State School
DePaul Law Review Volume 22 Issue 3 Spring 1973 Article 8 Constitutional Law - Procedural Due Process - The Rights of a Non-Tenured Teacher upon Non- Renewal of His Contract at a State School William E.
More informationDePaul Law Review. DePaul College of Law. Volume 11 Issue 1 Fall-Winter Article 11
DePaul Law Review Volume 11 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1961 Article 11 Courts - Federal Procedure - Federal Court Jurisdiction Obtained on Grounds That Defendant Has Claimed and Will Claim More than the Jurisdictional
More informationHarshad Patel v. Allstate New Jersey Insurance
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-3-2016 Harshad Patel v. Allstate New Jersey Insurance Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationHAFER v. MELO et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
OCTOBER TERM, 1991 21 Syllabus HAFER v. MELO et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 90 681. Argued October 15, 1991 Decided November 5, 1991 After petitioner
More informationCase 3:16-cv JAG Document 64 Filed 12/22/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 1025
Case 3:16-cv-00325-JAG Document 64 Filed 12/22/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 1025 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ELLEN SAILES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Staples v. United States of America Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA WILLIAM STAPLES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-10-1007-C ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationFederal Courts - The Personal vs. Property Rights Distinction for Federal Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1343: Three Decades of Controversy Made Moot
DePaul Law Review Volume 22 Issue 2 Winter 1973 Article 4 Federal Courts - The Personal vs. Property Rights Distinction for Federal Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1343: Three Decades of Controversy Made
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 5, 2001 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 5, 2001 Session CLARA FRAZIER v. EAST TENNESSEE BAPTIST HOSPITAL, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Eastern Section Circuit Court for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: March 1, 2012 Docket No. 30,535 ARNOLD LUCERO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, UNIVERSITY
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 Stephen Kerr Eugster Telephone: +1.0.. Facsimile: +1...1 Attorney for Plaintiff Filed March 1, 01 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 1 0 1 STEPHEN KERR EUGSTER, Plaintiff,
More informationConstitutional Law - Damages for Fourth Amendment Violations by Federal Agents
DePaul Law Review Volume 21 Issue 4 Summer 1972: Symposium on Federal-State Relations Part II Article 11 Constitutional Law - Damages for Fourth Amendment Violations by Federal Agents Anthony C. Sabbia
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WOLTERS REALTY, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 3, 2004 v No. 247228 Allegan Circuit Court SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP, SAUGATUCK LC No. 00-028157-CZ PLANNING COMMISSION,
More informationRandall Winslow v. P. Stevens
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-2-2015 Randall Winslow v. P. Stevens Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationInjunction to Prevent Divulgence of Evidence Obtained by Wiretaps in State Criminal Prosecutions
Nebraska Law Review Volume 40 Issue 3 Article 9 1961 Injunction to Prevent Divulgence of Evidence Obtained by Wiretaps in State Criminal Prosecutions Allen L. Graves University of Nebraska College of Law,
More informationCase3:13-cv WHA Document25 Filed02/26/14 Page1 of 21
Case:-cv-0-WHA Document Filed0// Page of 0 Marsha J. Chien, State Bar No. Christopher Ho, State Bar No. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER 0 Montgomery Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, California
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 05-85 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States POWEREX CORP., Petitioner, v. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
More informationCase3:13-cv NC Document1 Filed12/09/13 Page1 of 18
Case:-cv-0-NC Document Filed/0/ Page of Marsha J. Chien, State Bar No. Christopher Ho, State Bar No. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER 0 Montgomery Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, California
More informationLeary v. United States: Marijuana Tax Act - Self- Incrimination
SMU Law Review Volume 23 1969 Leary v. United States: Marijuana Tax Act - Self- Incrimination Richard D. Pullman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 113-cv-00544-RWS Document 16 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION THE DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT and DR. EUGENE
More informationNo , IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-364, 16-383 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOSHUA BLACKMAN, v. Petitioner, AMBER GASCHO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, et al., Respondents. JOSHUA ZIK, APRIL
More informationSection 1988: An Alternative to Vicarious Liability Under the Civil Rights Act of 1871: Gronquist v. Gilster, No. CV77-L-3 (D. Neb. Nov.
Nebraska Law Review Volume 58 Issue 4 Article 8 1979 Section 1988: An Alternative to Vicarious Liability Under the Civil Rights Act of 1871: Gronquist v. Gilster, No. CV77-L-3 (D. Neb. Nov. 16, 1978) James
More informationCase 3:09-cv AET-LHG Document 29 Filed 10/23/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 309-cv-03799-AET-LHG Document 29 Filed 10/23/2009 Page 1 of 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY William SORBER and Grace Johns, individually, and on behalf of
More informationCase 2:01-x JAC Document 57 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:01-x-70414-JAC Document 57 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. WALTER MARK LAZAR, v. Plaintiffs
More informationRESOLVING THE DISPUTE: THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRINGS SIDE AGREEMENTS INTO SCOPE IN THE CONFLICTS OVER ARBITRATION IN INLANDBOATMENS UNION V.
RESOLVING THE DISPUTE: THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRINGS SIDE AGREEMENTS INTO SCOPE IN THE CONFLICTS OVER ARBITRATION IN INLANDBOATMENS UNION V. DUTRA GROUP INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 301 of the Labor Management
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARGARET A. APAO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for Amresco Residential Securities Corporation Mortgage No.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: January 11, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 17-2346 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 01/17/2018 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RPX CORPORATION, Appellant v. CHANBOND LLC, Appellee 2017-2346
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FILED November 4, 1996 FOR PUBLICATION Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk LEONARD L. ROWE, ) Filed: November 4, 1996 ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) HAMILTON
More informationLocal Prejudice and Removal of Criminal Cases from State to Federal Courts
St. John's Law Review Volume 19 Issue 1 Volume 19, November 1944, Number 1 Article 6 July 2013 Local Prejudice and Removal of Criminal Cases from State to Federal Courts Theodore Krieger Follow this and
More informationPassport Denial and the Freedom to Travel
William & Mary Law Review Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 10 Passport Denial and the Freedom to Travel Roger M. Johnson Repository Citation Roger M. Johnson, Passport Denial and the Freedom to Travel, 2 Wm. &
More informationCase: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-3766 NAPERVILLE SMART METER AWARENESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NAPERVILLE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2005 WI APP 163 Case No.: 2004AP1771 Petition for review filed Complete Title of Case: RAINBOW SPRINGS GOLF COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. TOWN OF
More informationNo Supreme Court of the United States. Argued Dec. 1, Decided Feb. 24, /11 JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Copr. West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 480 U.S. 9 IOWA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner v. Edward M. LaPLANTE et al. No. 85-1589. Supreme Court of the United States
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv WS-B
Case: 14-12006 Date Filed: 03/27/2015 Page: 1 of 12 DONAVETTE ELY, versus IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOBILE HOUSING BOARD, FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12006 D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00105-WS-B
More informationStrickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does the deficient performance/resulting prejudice standard of Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D
GEORGE GIONIS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D00-2748 HEADWEST, INC., et al, Appellees. / Opinion filed November 16, 2001
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Robert Fennell, : Appellant : : No. 1198 C.D. 2015 v. : : Submitted: October 2, 2015 Captain N D Goss, Lieutenant : J. Lear, Lieutenant Allison, : Sgt. Workinger,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BARRY DONOHOO, v. DOUG HANSON et al., Plaintiff, Defendants. OPINION and ORDER 14-cv-309-wmc This lawsuit arises out of a relatively
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, LUCERO and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 23, 2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT PARKER LIVESTOCK, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OKLAHOMA
More informationTHE KNOWLAND AMENDMENT: A POTENTIAL THREAT TO FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Yale Law Journal Volume 60 Issue 5 Yale Law Journal Article 7 1951 THE KNOWLAND AMENDMENT: A POTENTIAL THREAT TO FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION STANDARDS Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj
More informationCase 1:18-cv CKK Document 16 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-00891-CKK Document 16 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JULIA CAVAZOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. RYAN ZINKE, et al., Defendants Civil Action
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1997) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Davis et al v. Pennsylvania Game Commission Doc. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHY DAVIS and HUNTERS ) UNITED FOR SUNDAY HUNTING ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) PENNSYLVANIA
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 11/04/2011 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationPapaiya v. City of Union City
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-14-2007 Papaiya v. City of Union City Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3674 Follow
More informationCase 1:16-cv WTL-DLP Document 44 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 615
Case 1:16-cv-00176-WTL-DLP Document 44 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 615 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 135, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. SYSCO INDIANAPOLIS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More informationAssignment. Federal Question Jurisdiction. Text Problem Case: Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
Assignment Federal Question Jurisdiction Text... 1-5 Problem.... 6-7 Case: Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley... 8-10 Statutes: 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1442(a), 1257 Federal Question Jurisdiction 28
More informationThe Application of Seciton 1983 to the Violation of Federal Statutory Rights - Maine v. Thiboutot
DePaul Law Review Volume 30 Issue 3 Spring 1981 Article 5 The Application of Seciton 1983 to the Violation of Federal Statutory Rights - Maine v. Thiboutot Owen M. Field Follow this and additional works
More informationELOISE GARBARENO, Petitioner/Appellant, No. 2 CA-CV Filed February 28, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE ESTATE OF RICHARD R. SNURE, DECEASED. ELOISE GARBARENO, Petitioner/Appellant, v. FRAN WHATLEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) No. 4:17-cv JAR ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Doe v. Francis Howell School District Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:17-cv-01301-JAR FRANCIS HOWELL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et
More informationCriminal Law - Counsel - Court-Appointed Attorney Held Absolutely Immune From Suit Under Federal Civil Rights Statute
Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 5 Number 2 Article 11 1977 Criminal Law - Counsel - Court-Appointed Attorney Held Absolutely Immune From Suit Under Federal Civil Rights Statute William A. Cahill, Jr.
More informationConstitutional Law: Fourteenth Amendment: Challenging the South Carolina Bar Exam. (Richardson v. McFadden)
Marquette Law Review Volume 60 Issue 4 Summer 1977 Article 9 Constitutional Law: Fourteenth Amendment: Challenging the South Carolina Bar Exam. (Richardson v. McFadden) Thomas L. Miller Follow this and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv TCB
Case: 16-12015 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 1 of 15 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-12015 D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00086-TCB ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE
More informationMotion to Correct Errors
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE XXXXXXXX DISTRICT OF XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX DIVISION Cause No.: 9:99-CV-123-ABC Firstname X. LASTNAME, In a petition for removal from the Circuit Petitioner (Xxxxxxx
More informationRichard Silva v. Craig Easter
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-18-2010 Richard Silva v. Craig Easter Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4550 Follow
More informationTimothy Lear v. George Zanic
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-5-2013 Timothy Lear v. George Zanic Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-2417 Follow this
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***
Case: 5:17-cv-00351-DCR Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 440 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington THOMAS NORTON, et al., V. Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv DLG.
Case: 14-11084 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11084 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22737-DLG AARON CAMACHO
More informationJury Trial--Surrogate's Court--Executrix Has Right to Jury Trial Under New York State Constitution (Matter of Garfield, 14 N.Y.
St. John's Law Review Volume 39 Issue 1 Volume 39, December 1964, Number 1 Article 13 May 2013 Jury Trial--Surrogate's Court--Executrix Has Right to Jury Trial Under New York State Constitution (Matter
More informationFordham Urban Law Journal
Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 4 4 Number 3 Article 10 1976 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1972- Jurisdiction to Review Effluent Limitation Regulations Promulgated
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 4:16cv501-RH/CAS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case 4:16-cv-00501-RH-CAS Document 29 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 12 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION JOHN DOE 1 et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Could Dramatically Reshape IPR Estoppel David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins *
David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins * Since the June grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Services, 1 the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court might find inter partes review (IPR), an adversarial
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.
No. 05-445 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION
Case 1:17-cv-00048-BMM-TJC Document 33 Filed 02/09/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION MICHAEL F. LAFORGE, CV-17-48-BLG-BMM-TJC Plaintiff, vs.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 5 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court
More informationCase: 5:12-cv KKC Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/04/14 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 234
Case: 5:12-cv-00369-KKC Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/04/14 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 234 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON DAVID COYLE, individually and d/b/a
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Submitted:September 23, 2013 Decided: December 8, 2014)
--cv (L) 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Submitted:September, 0 Decided: December, 0) Docket Nos. --cv, --cv -----------------------------------------------------------X
More informationPUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, No
PUBLISH FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 19, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT MINER ELECTRIC, INC.; RUSSELL E. MINER, v.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit ORDER AND JUDGMENT * I. BACKGROUND
FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT December 2, 2014 JAMES F. CLEAVER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CLAUDE MAYE, Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of
More informationThe Government Contacts Exception to the District of Columbia Long-Arm Statute: Portrait of a Legal Morass
Catholic University Law Review Volume 36 Issue 3 Spring 1987 Article 10 1987 The Government Contacts Exception to the District of Columbia Long-Arm Statute: Portrait of a Legal Morass Hilaire Henthorne
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DOMINIQUE FORTUNE, by and through her Next Friend, PHYLLIS D. FORTUNE, UNPUBLISHED October 12, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 248306 Wayne Circuit Court CITY OF DETROIT
More informationWest s Law Encyclopedia of American Law: 42 USC 1983
West s Law Encyclopedia of American Law: 42 USC 1983 Section 1983 of title 42 of the U.S. Code is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This provision was formerly enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act
More informationOffer and Acceptance. Louisiana Law Review. Michael W. Mengis
Louisiana Law Review Volume 45 Number 3 The 1984 Revision of the Louisiana Civil Code's Articles on Obligations - A Student Symposium January 1985 Offer and Acceptance Michael W. Mengis Repository Citation
More informationWillie Walker v. State of Pennsylvania
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-8-2014 Willie Walker v. State of Pennsylvania Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-4499
More informationIC Chapter 17. Claims for Benefits
IC 22-4-17 Chapter 17. Claims for Benefits IC 22-4-17-1 Rules; mass layoffs; extended benefits; posting Sec. 1. (a) Claims for benefits shall be made in accordance with rules adopted by the department.
More informationDistrict Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 129 S.Ct (2009). Dorothea Thompson' I. Summary
Thompson: Post-Conviction Access to a State's Forensic DNA Evidence 6:2 Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy 307 STUDENT CASE COMMENTARY POST-CONVICTION ACCESS TO A STATE'S FORENSIC DNA EVIDENCE FOR PROBATIVE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 23, 2017 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 23, 2017 Session 08/01/2017 JOHN O. THREADGILL V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 189713-1 John F. Weaver,
More informationDavid Schatten v. Weichert Realtors
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-27-2010 David Schatten v. Weichert Realtors Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-4678
More informationStruggle over Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings Continues: The Eighth Circuit Chooses Sides, The
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1991 Issue 1 Article 12 1991 Struggle over Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings Continues: The Eighth Circuit Chooses Sides, The Scott E. Blair Follow this and
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BACHARACH, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
In re: LARRY WAYNE PARR, a/k/a Larry W. Parr, a/k/a Larry Parr, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit May 22, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 13-5055 Document: 37-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/09/2014 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ERIC D. CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-5055 Appeal
More informationDaniel Conceicao v. National Water Main Cleaning C
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-25-2016 Daniel Conceicao v. National Water Main Cleaning C Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationFOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 06 2007 CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PROGRESSIVE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff - Appellant, No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-60414 Document: 00513846420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/24/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar SONJA B. HENDERSON, on behalf of the Estate and Wrongful
More informationArvind Gupta v. Secretary United States Depart
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-5-2016 Arvind Gupta v. Secretary United States Depart Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY 17, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY 17, 2008 Session CHRISTUS GARDENS, INC. v. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 02C-1807 James L.
More information